Stephen: I certainly agree that icon/index/symbol was *one* of Peirce's many trichotomies, the one that corresponds specifically to the relation of a sign/representamen to its (dynamic) object. However, as you presumably know, his trichotomy for the normative sciences--the 2ns branch of philosophy, between phaneroscopy (1ns) and metaphysics (3ns)--was not reality/ethics/esthetics, but esthetics/ethics/logic, with logic then broadly construed as semeiotic and consisting of speculative grammar/critic/methodeutic. As I understand it, the overall idea is that esthetics identifies good habits of feeling, ethics identifies good habits of action in accordance with esthetics, and logic/semeiotic identifies good habits of thought/sign-action in accordance with ethics.
In calling ethics "an index of values," is it *prescriptive* such that ethics indicates the values that one *should *have, or is it *descriptive *such that someone's ethics--presumably as manifested in his/her actual behavior--indicates the values that he/she *does *have? Regards, Jon On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, an ethical index. Do we agree a proper Peirce triad is Icon Index > Symbol? If so, do we agree that Peirce did not really flesh out his > thoughts about ethics and aesthetics though he valued both highly? If so, > do we agree that those who know such things will remind us that if Peirce > attached an order to ethics and aesthetics he placed aesthetics before > ethics? I think this is the case. Now I will say how I see it and explain. > I see ethics as the second in a progression that goes from icon-reality > through index-ethics through symbol-aesthetics (expression and or action). > The pragmatic maxim rendered understandable and sensible! The explanation > is everything I have written on Peirce since I found out anything about > him. It includes seeing ethics as an index of values and seeing > consideration of ethics as an inherent blunt truth aspect of considering > what one will say and do. I think to place aesthetics as the third, in > opposition to Peirce if that order was important to him, has to do with the > central problem of aesthetics which is its captivity by the art world, made > possible by the late Professor Danto and others. For me, aesthetcs is the > whole thing, life here and now from its ugliest to the most beautiful. We > are all artists. Now to top this off, ask yourself why Mao's cultural > revolution was a miserable failure? I say it was because of its ethics. An > ethics that does not see the binary as the problem, conflict and violence > the outcome, is no ethic at all. The CR of Mao could only have succeeded as > an explicitly nonviolent movement. So too our future as well. That is a > little window on my placement of an ethical index in the central blunt > truth position that "his glassy essence" may not have seen. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Jon A.: Thanks for your comments. >> >> Stephen: Ditto. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "an >> ethical index" in this context? >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> A sequential triadic means of actual practical life requires a step past >>> Peirce although all the elements of this sequential means are implicit in >>> his writings. I believe it is the need for an ethical index that must be >>> argued, along with the obvious point that only conscious action that is >>> considered can be said to count as a documentable indication of practical >>> results. >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jon, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the link. >>>> >>>> The duality or complementarity between Thought and Action (Dewey) >>>> or Information and Control (as later generations came to cast it >>>> within cybernetics, computer science, and the systems sciences) >>>> has always been an integral feature of Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim. >>>> Many of my early days on the Peirce List were exhausted in the >>>> effort to communicate the implications of that integration. >>>> But the pull toward Spectator Philosophies (James) is very >>>> persistent and it will no doubt take the exertion of many >>>> wills to overcome their one-sighted bias. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
